Duke v. Hogan
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.
1. The use of the word “ plaintiff ” instead of the word “ defendant ” in the charge of the court, where the context plainly showed the use of the word was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as *361was not calculated to mislead the jury, will not necessitate a new trial. Hoxie v. State, 114 Ga. 19 (6) (39 S. E. 944), and citations; Berry v. Clark, 117 Ga. 964 (2) (44 S. E. 824); Southern Ry. Co. v. Merritt, 120 Ga. 409 (47 S. E. 908); Lothridge v. Varnadore, 140 Ga. 131 (2) (78 S. E. 721); L. & N. R. Co. v. Culpepper, 142 Ga. 275 (2) (82 S. E. 659), and citations; Loe v. Brown, 155 Ga. 24 (116…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hoxie v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Southern Railway Co. v. MerrittSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Berry v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. CulpepperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
- Loe v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Neville v. National Life & Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Wardlaw v. WardlawCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Mills v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Adams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Duke v. HoganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.